Navigation

The Oslo mass murder and the mainstreaming of racism in Europe; Solidarity from Palestine

The Sun, a flagship daily of the disgraced Murdoch empire, immediately prepared a front page that described the far-right attack as an "Al Qaeda Massacre".

By Miriyam Aouragh and Richard Seymour

July 27, 2011 -- Jadaliyya -- Media coverage of the Norwegian tragedy was led with
dangerous and clichéd arguments about "Islamic extremism" and
multiculturalism, even after the identity of the killer was confirmed –
thus contributing to the mainstreaming of racism that helped make
far-right mass murderer Anders Breivik what he is.

An hour before Breivik embarked on his massacre of the innocents in Oslo on July 23, he distributed his manifesto
online. In 1500 pages, this urgent message identified “cultural
Marxists”, “multiculturalists”, anti-Zionists and leftists as “traitors”
who are allowing Christian Europe to be overtaken by Muslims. He
subsequently murdered dozens of these "traitors", the majority of them
children, at a Labour Party youth camp. His inspiration, according to
this manifesto, were those pathfinders of the Islamophobic right who
have profited immensely from the framing and prosecution of the “war on
terror”, including Melanie Phillips, Bernard Lewis, Daniel Pipes, Martin
Kramer and Bat Ye’or.

Yet, almost before the attacks were concluded, a "line" was
developing in the mass media: the attack was perpetrated by jihadists, and
certainly was an "Al Qaeda style" attack. Peter Beaumont of The Guardian was among the first to develop this narrative, but it was rapidly taken up across the media. Glenn Greenwald describes how on the day of the attack “the featured headline on The New York Times online front page strongly suggested that Muslims were responsible for the attacks on Oslo; that led to definitive statements on the BBC and elsewhere that Muslims were the culprits”. Meanwhile, “the Washington Post's Jennifer Rubin wrote a whole column
based on the assertion that Muslims were responsible”. A hoax claim of "responsibility" for the attack from a previously unknown group,
disseminated by a dubious "expert", was used to spin this line well beyond the point of credibility.

Effort to incriminate Muslims

One might ascribe all of this to bad judgement and prejudice were it
not for the fact that well after the identity of the terrorist had been
established as a white, Christian Norwegian, the conversation continued
to be about Islam and multiculturalism. The Wall Street Journal, for example, began its editorial on the subject with three paragraphs about Islam. The Sun, a flagship daily of the disgraced Murdoch empire, prepared a front page that initially described the attack as an "Al Qaeda Massacre". The Guardian’s analysis piece
on the day following the attack featured a series of experts –
including Will McCant, who had circulated the bogus claim of
responsibility – attributing the attacks to "jihadists". In fairness, The Guardian later removed the analysis piece and the Peter Beaumont article, while The Sun changed its front page

Even when the "jihadi" angle was dropped, the effort to incriminate Islam and Muslims continued. The Belgian daily De Morgen,
accepting the “white roots” of the perpetrator, nonetheless insisted
that “the possibility that ... the perpetrator is a sympathizer of Al
Qaeda should not be ignored” (Original: "De kans is klein maar
het valt ook niet uit te sluiten dat de dader ondanks zijn blanke
wortels een sympathisant is van Al Qaida.”) In The Atlantic, it was asserted
that the spirit of jihadism had "mutated" and spread to the far right,
as if fascism has no tradition of terrorism to speak of. The Guardian’s Simon Tisdall similarly argued that Breivik adopted the “language of Muslim jihadists”,
though his idiom was classically fascist. There was a real fear that
the grotesque nature of the attacks, by drawing attention to the dangers
of racism, would undermine support for Islamophobic policies. For the Jerusalem Post, it was imperative that this should be avoided, and the attack should serve as an opportunity to
“seriously re-evaluate policies for immigration integration in Norway
and elsewhere”. Similarly, the widely esteemed "atheist" writer Sam
Harris is insistent
that this attack should not blind us to the fact that “Islam remains
the most retrograde and ill-behaved religion on earth”. This is the same
author who has written
that those “who speak most sensibly about the threat that Islam poses
to Europe are actually fascists”. The logic is clear: Breivik is
despicable, but his savagery expresses a truth about Islam and
multiculturalism; an understanding of which should form the basis of
European policy.

Operated alone?

Perhaps the least convincing claim about Breivik has been the idea
that he operated alone – a claim that would never have been made had the
perpetrator been a Muslim. This was encouraged by Norwegian police and intelligence service as they attempted to downplay
his far-right connections. Breivik may have planned and perpetrated
this specific atrocity by himself, but it is also clear that, far from
being a lone wolf, he comes straight out of a racial-nationalist
activist milieu. He had been active in the anti-immigrant Progress Party in Norway, and has been in contact with the far-right English Defence League (EDL). Daryl Hobson, a member of the EDL whose links with EDL leader "Tommy Robinson" have proven a source of embarrassment, acknowledged that Breivik had met him, while a "senior member" told the Independent that Breivik had met several of the group’s leaders. Breivik
himself claims to have advised the EDL on tactics, and to have been
instrumental in co-founding the Norwegian Defence League. Far from being
a lone madman, Breivik seems to have been embedded in the activist
networks of the European far right.

Equally important, the racism that motivated Breivik comes straight
from the "mainstream". His ideological inspirations are prominent
European politicians such as Geert Wilders, as well as media reports,
columns and books written by various Islamophobic intellectuals. This
connection is not incidental. A 2010 report
on Islamophobia in the UK, conducted by researchers at the University
of Exeter, established an important correlation between both political
rhetoric and media coverage concerning Islam and subsequent upsurges in
racist violence toward Muslims. In fact, the ideas that Breivik
articulates stand in a tradition of European reaction. In "Londonistan"
and "Eurabia", we hear echoes of "Jew York", just as in Breivik’s "Marxist-Islamist alliance", we hear Hitler’s evocation of the "Bolshevik-Jewish threat". That Islam has now taken the place of Judaism
in the paranoid weltanschauung of some of the far right is a result of a transformed global situation.

The "war on terror" licensed a period of intense imperial
revivalism. It was suddenly the fashionable thing for intellectuals,
former enragés among them, to eulogise about the benefits of
empire, especially if led by the US. But the negative obverse of this
supposedly humane dominion was Islam: the reputedly inhumane, irrational
and barbaric nemesis of empire. While this dehumanisation of Muslims
fuelled the bloodshed on the frontiers of Iraq and Afghanistan, it could
not but flow back to the metropole, so that every European Muslim
became a potentially menacing alien. The outward attributes of Islam,
from dress to architecture, became the subjects of reactionary
campaigns, street violence and state repression. The far right has
learned and benefited from this. The organisations esteemed by Breivik –
the English Defence League and the Dutch Party for Freedom led by Geert
Wilders – are among those that have translated the ascriptive hierarchy
of the new imperialism into a new language for domestic reaction.

The complicity between the Islamophobic right and the far right is
partly manifested in the latter’s growth translated into parliamentary
seats. No longer marginal, they now occupy positions of state
power. This has intensified both the racism of the streets and
institutional racism at the level of the state, manifested in the ban
on minarets, the niqab, hijab and halal meat in Switzerland, France,
Belgium and the Netherlands, respectively. Further, they act as a
gravitational force pulling mainstream parties further to the right. The
sources of their support are challenged neither by the centre right nor
the centre left, both of which instead seek to emulate the far right.
This trend has contributed significantly to the mainstreaming of racist
ideas that form the basis for such violent outrages.

That the media’s response to the attacks very often conformed to the
same "clash of civilisations" motif that undergirded Breivik’s own
would-be chef d'oeuvre is an irony that has largely been lost in
the deluge of opinion. What has also been lost, and what is as
important, is the sheer idiotic irrelevance of such ideas in an era of
Arab revolutions. The "clash of civilisations" is more vacant than
ever. Meanwhile, transnational jihadism has had its day. For as long as
the vast majority of people in the Middle East suffered under the thumb
of US-sponsored despots with little prospect of a reprieve, the solution
of "terror" had some limited purchase. But, while there may still be
attacks, the base of support for such actions is being eroded every
day. Astonishingly, none of the media’s queue of experts referred to
this outstanding fact.

Many of the Muslims – including European Muslims – whom many
Europeans have spent a decade vilifying, are now demonstrating that they
have a more expansive and humane conception of democracy than most of
their European oblocutors, and that their commitment to it is more
enduring. Pundits might wish to reflect on that heroism and its meaning,
as well as the diabolical horror in Norway and its meaning, before they
reflexively verbalise the stale clichés of the "war on terror".

[This article first appreared at Jadaliyya. Jadaliyya is an independent ezine produced by Arab Studies Institute, a network of writers associated with the Arab Studies Journal (www.ArabStudiesJournal.org). Richard Seymour publishes Lenin's Tomb.]

Palestinian civil society expresses solidarity with people of Norway

Arbeidernes
Ungdomsfylking (AUF), the Norwegian labour youth party, declared their
support for the boycott of Israel during a visit by Norwegian foreign
Minister Jonas Gahr Støre in the days before the massacre at its
summer camp.[1]

By Palestinian BDS National Committee

July 27, 2011 -- Palestinian civil society, as broadly represented within the
Palestinian Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions National Committee (BNC),
wishes to express its sincere condolences to and deep solidarity with
the people of Norway and to Arbeidernes Ungdomsfylking (AUF), the
Norwegian labour youth party, in particular after the massacre of last
Friday committed by a far-right fanatic.

Palestinians stand with the people of Norway as they mourn the
victims, and our hearts go out to the families and friends of those who
have died.

This horrendous massacre serves as a grave reminder of the dangers
posed by racism, hatred and intolerance. We are confident that Norway’s
long tradition of peace loving, respecting diversity and upholding human
rights anywhere in the world will stand up to this ugly test of
fundamentalism and hate; we trust that the Norwegian people’s
determination to fight xenophobia and its resultant disregard for equal
human rights will be further strengthened.

These violent and horrific attacks cannot be viewed in isolation.
There is a growing wave of officially sanctioned Islamophobia in several Western countries, driven by misinformation, intolerance and right-wing
Zionism, with strong links to Israel. Tragically, this racist and
extreme rhetoric has been put into action with many Norwegians paying
the price with their lives. The murderer, by his own admission, drew his
motivation for this heinous crime from the by now widespread
anti-Arab/Muslim discourse that dwells on a perceived “clash of
civilisations” and a blind support for Israel and its crimes against the
Palestinian people.

Palestinians deeply empathise and stand with Norwegians as fellow
humans and as a people that has its own long experience of pain and
grief. In Israel’s Gaza massacre alone, more than 1400 people, mostly
civilians, lost their lives.[2] Homes, schools, UN shelters, university
buildings, civilian infrastructure, hospitals, ambulances, sewage
systems, power stations and more were ruthlessly decimated by Israel’s
state terrorism in its assault on Gaza 2008-09. The noble humanitarian
work and moving testimonies of the prominent Norwegian physician, Dr
Mads Gilbert, attest to the scale of the crime Israel has committed in
Gaza and continues to commit on a daily basis with its illegal and
immoral siege of 1.5 million Palestinians. It is often in times of great
suffering, however, that human compassion and solidarity shine
brightest.

We believe that these despicable crimes in Norway will only
strengthen the resolve of all people of conscience around the world to
pursue freedom, justice and equality and to join hands in combating
racism in all forms.

We appreciate greatly the support for Palestinian rights and,
specifically, for the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement,
as shown by members of the AUF summer camp. We deeply appreciate the
support for a boycott of Israel from LO,[3] the Norwegian labour
federation, and from close to half the people of Norway, as shown in
polls following Israel’s bloody flotilla attack last summer.[4] We
salute the Norwegian pension fund for divesting from three Israeli
companies implicated in Israel’s occupation and colonisation.[5] We are
proud of the brave decision taken by Norway to ban testing submarines
destined to Israel and to support a military embargo on Israel.[6] We
stand by the friends and families of all victims at this difficult time.

We hope to honour their memory by working more closely together with
the AUF and other partners in Norwegian civil society towards a more
just world where there is no place for racism and hatred.